Joy and Solemnityhttps://cameronshaffer.com
The Website of Cameron Shaffer
Tue, 05 Mar 2019 00:00:34 +0000 en-US
hourly
1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.1.1https://cameronshaffer.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/cropped-Burning-Bush-32x32.jpgJoy and Solemnityhttps://cameronshaffer.com
3232Why the Case for Episcopal Government Doesn’t Persuadehttps://cameronshaffer.com/2019/03/04/why-the-case-for-episcopal-government-doesnt-persuade/
https://cameronshaffer.com/2019/03/04/why-the-case-for-episcopal-government-doesnt-persuade/#respondMon, 04 Mar 2019 23:40:37 +0000http://cameronshaffer.com/?p=692an outline of the biblical and historical case for episcopacy, wherein "church governance centres on the bishop as the fulcrum of faith, order, and ministry...The diocese is the basic unit with a single bishop overseeing a number of priests and parishes. The bishop is distinct from and above the priests and deacons, who serve in an individual congregation."
For this presbyterian, the strength of Bird's position came down to two key arguments. First, that ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos, "bishop/overseer") and πρεσβύτερος (presbuteros, "elder") are not synonyms, but perionyms, meaning that their meanings overlap rather being interchangeable. Citing the work of Alistair Stewart, Bird suggests, "that early congregations had a single episkopos, but when the many episkopoi of a city met together, they became a federated council of presbyteroi (emphasis original)." Second, that the apostles functioned as a college of bishops from which the episcopate is modeled and derives its legitimacy. There was originally a cohort of apostles leading the church in Jerusalem, then just Peter, James, and John, and finally, just James. "The Jerusalem church evolved from an authority consisting of apostles with elders and deacons, to a monoepiscopacy with the bishop acting as first among equals among the elders."
So, the crux of the argument that precludes presbyterianism is that, a) ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος are perionyms, and b) we see monoepiscopacy in scripture with James in Jerusalem, which illustrates the overlapping, and yet distinct, nature of bishops and elders.
I was left unpersuaded. This argument is begging the question. I acknowledge that Bird was providing a sketch of the alleged biblical and historical basis for episcopacy, and that some of the points he mentioned might not be his own position. In the same spirit, this is a sketch of why the biblical and historical argument for episcopacy is rejected by presbyterians...]]>Michael Bird provided an outline of the biblical and historical case for episcopacy, wherein “church governance centres on the bishop as the fulcrum of faith, order, and ministry…The diocese is the basic unit with a single bishop overseeing a number of priests and parishes. The bishop is distinct from and above the priests and deacons, who serve in an individual congregation.”

For this presbyterian, the strength of Bird’s position came down to two key arguments. First, that ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos, “bishop/overseer”) and πρεσβύτερος (presbuteros, “elder”) are not synonyms, but perionyms, meaning that their meanings overlap rather being interchangeable. Citing the work of Alistair Stewart, Bird suggests, “that early congregations had a single episkopos, but when the many episkopoi of a city met together, they became a federated council of presbyteroi (emphasis original).” Second, that the apostles functioned as a college of bishops from which the episcopate is modeled and derives its legitimacy. There was originally a cohort of apostles leading the church in Jerusalem, then just Peter, James, and John, and finally, just James. “The Jerusalem church evolved from an authority consisting of apostles with elders and deacons, to a monoepiscopacy with the bishop acting as first among equals among the elders.”

So, the crux of the argument that precludes presbyterianism is that, a) ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος are perionyms, and b) we see monoepiscopacy in scripture with James in Jerusalem, which illustrates the overlapping, and yet distinct, nature of bishops and elders.

I was left unpersuaded. This argument is begging the question. I acknowledge that Bird was providing a sketch of the alleged biblical and historical basis for episcopacy, and that some of the points he mentioned might not be his own position. In the same spirit, this is a sketch of why the biblical and historical argument for episcopacy is rejected by presbyterians.

First, even if it is conceded that ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος are perionyms rather than synonyms, there is no evidence that an ἐπίσκοπος outranks a πρεσβύτερος, has jurisdiction over a number of parishes, or oversees subordinate elders. Bird presented an equivocation between the modern definition and practice of episcopacy and the term ἐπίσκοπος; essentially, the modern definition is being read back into the biblical term.

If ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος are not synonyms, but perionyms, there needs to be a biblical warrant for a distinction between the roles in practice, specifically that ἐπίσκοπος corresponds to the modern understanding of episcopacy. That is exactly the question at hand after all. In the five times ἐπίσκοπος and its relevant cognates are used in the Bible (Acts 20:28, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:1-2, Titus 1:7, 1 Peter 2:12, 5:2) there is no indication that an overseer functions in the way practiced in the historic episcopate.

Philippians 1:1 is problematic for this view. There, Paul greets ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις (bishops and deacons). There is agreement that deacons served local congregations, not an entire diocese or presbytery. Why would Paul greet the bishops of Philippi (regional ministers) and deacons (congregational servants), but not the elders (congregational ministers)? If ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος are different offices, then where are the elders in Philippians? Why would Paul not greet the ministers of the local congregations, but still greet the deacons of those congregations? This problem arises with 1 Timothy 3 as well: Paul lists out qualifications for ἐπίσκοπος and διάκονος, but not πρεσβύτερος. If ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος are distinct offices, why would Paul feel the need to lay out the qualifications for one, but not the other, while also presenting the qualifications for deacon? This issue is neatly resolved if ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος reference the same office.

It is telling that there is no reference to Ephesians 4:7-12 or 1 Peter in Bird’s summary. 1 Peter 2:25 describes Jesus as the ποιμήν (poimen, “shepherd, pastor”) and ἐπίσκοπος of our souls. In 1 Peter 5:1-2, the apostle instructs the πρεσβύτερος to ποιμαίνω (“to shepherd,” the verb cognate of ποιμήν) by ἐπισκοπέω (“exercising oversight,” the verb cognate of ἐπίσκοπος). In 5:4 Jesus is called the chief ποιμήν, relegating the πρεσβύτερος being addressed by Peter to the role of undershepherds. So 1 Peter connects the acts of overseeing and shepherding to the role of elder/pastor, which derives its pattern and basis from the model of Christ as the head of the church. Elders oversee/bishop the church by shepherding it, just as Jesus oversees and shepherds his church.

Ephesians 4:7-12 has historically been used by presbyterians to make a case for the divine institution of the different teaching offices of the church. While neither ἐπίσκοπος or πρεσβύτερος are used there, ποιμήν is. Ποιμήν in Ephesians 4:11 is a gift given by Christ to his church for its upbuilding. As in 1 Peter, ποιμήν in Ephesians 4 is ectypal of Christ’s shepherding leadership of the church. The list of Ephesians 4:11-12 is not understood by presbyterians as exhaustive of the gifts given by God to his church, but is understood as programatic for the gifts given for the shepherding and teaching ministry of the church. ποιμήν is one of the perpetual, normative offices of the church. Just as the term πρεσβύτερος is absent from the list, ἐπίσκοπος is not mentioned. Πρεσβύτερος’ absence is due to its synonymity with ποιμήν; the same is true for ἐπίσκοπος. If either ἐπίσκοπος or πρεσβύτερος were distinct offices from ποιμήν they would have needed to be included separately.

Stewart argues “that early congregations had a single episkopos, but when the many episkopoi of a city met together, they became a federated council of presbyteroi.” Bird then uses Stewart’s argument that Paul’s instructions to the church leaders of Miletus (Acts 20:17-29) were to the “gathered presbyteroi [in order] to be episkopoi of their respective churches (emphasis original).” This model better matches historic presbyterianism than episcopal governance: the elders of Miletus each oversaw individual congregations and then shared regional governance as a council of elders. Acts 20:17 records Paul summoning the πρεσβυτέρους of Miletus, whom he addresses as ἐπισκόπους in Acts 20:28. What is not mentioned by Bird is that Paul addresses the elders as overseers in order for them to ποιμαίνειν the church of God. This is the same pattern present in 1 Peter 5: the elders are to oversee God’s church by shepherding it. The repetition of this pattern, bolstered by Ephesians 4:7-12, lends credence to the position that ἐπίσκοπος, ποιμήν, and πρεσβύτερος are different terms describing the same office from different perspectives.

The Second Helvetic Confession (1566) makes this point in Chapter 18:

Furthermore, the ministers of the new people are called by various names. For they are called apostles, prophets, evangelists, bishops, elders, pastors, and teachers (I Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11)…Therefore, the ministers of the churches may now be called bishops, elders, pastors, and teachers…Now the one and an equal power or function is given to all ministers in the Church. Certainly, in the beginning, the bishops or presbyters governed the Church in common; no man lifted up himself above another, none usurped greater power or authority over his fellow-bishops.

Bird cites Stewart to argue that Titus 1:5,7 presents a similar situation to Acts 20: “However, kata polin presbyterous might not be ‘elders in every town’ but ‘council-of-elders-of-town’ (1:5). So Paul was telling Titus to select from among the episkopoi those persons who could serve as a body of presybteroi.” But this suggestion is actually the opposite of whats Stewart suggests is happening in Acts 20. There, Stewart argues that the πρεσβυτέρους was a council of elders composed of individual bishops, something that should be true by virtue of that office – to be a bishop is to be on the council of elders. In Titus 1 Stewart is arguing that bishops need to be appointed to the council of elders, and that being on the council is not intrinsically part of that office. This is a forced and convoluted reading of Titus 1. If the office of ἐπίσκοπος outranks the office πρεσβύτερος, surely that would mean that an ἐπίσκοπος would be on the council of elders by virtue of his office? Surely Titus is not intending to exclude lawfully and biblically ordained bishops from appointment to the council of elders? And if no ἐπίσκοπος is to be excluded, then why bother appointing them, since they are automatically part of the council? And even if κατὰ πόλιν πρεσβυτέρους meant “council-of-elders-of-town” there would also still need to be actual elders on the council. The implication of Stewart’s take on Acts 20 and Titus 1 is that only bishops, and not elders, are on the council of elders. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I am unaware that any proponent of episcopacy rejects πρεσβύτερος as a distinct office of the church. That is what a priest is in Anglicanism after all, right? If Paul left Titus in Crete in order to appoint “council-of-elders-of-town” then part of Titus’ mission would be to appoint not only bishops, but elders, to the council of elders. But the πρεσβυτέρους of Titus 1:5 is described using ἐπίσκοπον 1:7. Therefore, ἐπίσκοπον is another way of describing the πρεσβυτέρους, which either means the terms referencing the same office, or if Stewart’s argument is correct, precluding elders from the πρεσβυτέρους. The latter view finds no basis in the text and the former is historic presbyterianism.

Acts 14:23 also records Paul and Barnabas χειροτονήσαντες δὲ αὐτοῖς κατ’ ἐκκλησίαν πρεσβυτέρους – choosing elders for them in every church (in Lystra, Inconium, and Antioch). The πρεσβυτέρους are each individual church in these cities, whether that is one church per city or multiple churches per city. What this means is that each congregation had a council of elders, not a single ἐπίσκοπος who joined with other ἐπίσκοποι to form a council of elders. This undercuts the perionym argument.

Regardless, neither Acts 14, 20, or Titus 1 give any indication that an ἐπίσκοπος governs a regional dioceses as the overseer of the elders in individual congregations. Rather, the most consistent reading of the biblical text is to take ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος as two different ways of describing the same office.

Second, while James appears to be the solo apostle present when Paul returns to Jerusalem (Acts 21:17-18), this is not evidence of a monoepiscopacy. Most obviously, James’ apostleship is never identified as a monoepiscopacy, nor is James ever called an ἐπίσκοπος. His sole apostleship, and the regional authority derived from his office, can only be accepted as evidence of episcopacy if we accept in advance a direct connection between apostles and bishops that is distinct from a similar connection between apostles and elders. James being the sole apostle in the region can only be evidence of a monoepiscopacy by begging the question.

Never once in scripture is ἐπίσκοπος or its cognates used to describe the apostles or their office. Yes, James is the sole apostle alongside the elders of Jerusalem in Acts 17:18, but there is nothing contextually to suggest that he is doing so as an ἐπίσκοπος. If Stewart’s argument is taken at face value, πάντες οἱ πρεσβύτεροι (all the elders) in Acts 17:18 would be Jerusalem’s council of elders, which as the council of elders would include ἐπίσκοποι. This either indicates that James is not, in fact, the sole bishop in Jerusalem (and so this is not a monoepiscopacy), or indicates that πρεσβύτεροι are not composed of ἐπίσκοποι who are distinct from elders.

Bird’s argument does not take into account the distinction between apostles and bishops, and assumes without evidence that there is a special continuity between these offices. On the other hand, Peter self-identifies as a συμπρεσβύτερος (sunpresbuteros/fellow-elder) in 1 Peter 5:1, and Paul states in Ephesians 4:11 that ποιμήν are part of the same series of gifts to the church as the apostles, the foundation upon which the church is built (Ephesians 3:20). So, the office of apostle is never semantically connected to ἐπίσκοπος, but is linked to πρεσβύτερος and ποιμήν. This is one reason why the argument for apostolic succession does not impress presbyterians: we believe in apostolic succession as well, just not through individual bishops, but through the ordained courts of elders.

It is also unclear how Bird’s case justifies the existence of archbishops or patriarchs (“…Anglican churches respect the bishop of Rome as the ‘Patriarch of the West,'”). Even if Peter was the head of the apostolic college, and therefore the heirs to his bishopric held ecclesiastical supremacy, that does not justify the existence of multiple other archbishops or patriarchs. Episcopacy treats these as distinct, higher offices (with some variety, depending on the denomination) from bishops in general, and there is certainly no biblical evidence for this kind of additional hierarchy.

So, James’ apostolic work in Jerusalem is not evidence of monoepiscopacy because James was exercising his authority as an apostle. The terms πρεσβύτερος and ποιμήν are directly linked to the apostolic office, while ἐπίσκοπος is not. There is not a biblical warrant to argue a direct succession from apostles to the unique office of ἐπίσκοπος.

Third, the early church witness, while not uniform, presents a picture of bishops as local pastors, not regional church governors. Bird reflects, “Interestingly, I do recollect Stephen Holmes (St. Andrews Uni) saying that he had no problem with Ignatius of Antioch [c. 35- c. 107] as a bishop, since he was really just a pastor over a local church who led them in preaching and communion every week.” The view of Holmes’ seems to me the most clear understanding of Ignatius’ epistles. There is also a large number of times Ignatius ties bishops and presbyters together, but on the surface the evidence from these references for either the historic presbyterian position or Stewart’s is inconclusive.

Ignatius does state, however, in his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans (c. 107) 8.1-2,

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

This is consistent with the rest of Ignatius’ epistles, but what is unique is his sacramental restrictions. Only bishops may administer the sacraments. Ignatius does say that the Eucharist may be administered by one the bishop appoints (which could be a priest/elder in episcopal polity), but that circumstance is presented as the exception, not the rule. Again, I know of no one who suggests that priests/elders are not allowed to administer the sacraments if a bishop is not present. Ignatius’ description of the work of a bishop fits far better with someone working as a congregational pastor than as a regional church governor.

Something similar is present in the First Epistle of Clement (written c. 95-140). Bird cites this work as evidence of the chain of succession between bishops and the apostles. That is part of the argument of 1 Clement, but the epistle also shows bishops having a local, congregational ministry (1 Clement 42:3-5):

Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits, having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons.

Deacons, who indisputably have a local role, are connected to the bishops. Presbyters are absent from this passage, and while it could be possible that local elders were unknown to Clement, what it is more likely is that bishops and elders are one and the same office. This is borne out in 1 Clement 44:4-5, “For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate (ἐπισκοπῆς) those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who (οἱ πρεσβύτεροι), having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them.” The presbyters in view are not a council of elders, but the elders who would compose such a council and are laboring in the Corinthian church (“giving all fitting honour to the presbyters among you,” 1 Clement 1:3; see similar language in 47:6, 54:2, and 57:1). The presbyters mentioned here are clearly (and grammatically!) individuals, and are identified with the office of bishop. Clement even goes so far as to warn against ejecting presbyters from the office of bishop! The terms are clearly interchangeable.

The idea that a bishop is local, pastoral office is also present in the Didache (late 1st-early 2nd century). Chapter 14 of the Didache urges Christians to gather together for communal worship on the Lord’s Day. Chapter 15 begins, “Therefore appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons of the Lord…for they too carry out the ministry of the prophets and teachers.” Here the ministry of the bishop is local and pastoral, not regional governance.

Chapter 18 of the Second Helvetic Confession cites St. Jerome (347-420) as an authority on how the office of bishop became disconnected from the pastoral work of elders.

St. Jerome also in his commentary upon The Epistle of Paul to Titus, says something not unlike this: ‘Before attachment to persons in religion was begun at the instigation of the devil, the churches were governed by the common consultation of the elders; but after every one thought that those whom he had baptized were his own, and not Christ’s, it was decreed that one of the elders should be chosen, and set over the rest, upon whom should fall the care of the whole Church, and all schismatic seeds should be removed.’ Yet St. Jerome does not recommend this decree as divine; for he immediately adds: ‘As the elders knew from the custom of the Church that they were subject to him who was set over them, so the bishops knew that they were subject to him who was set over them, so the bishops knew that they were above the elders, more from custom than from the truth of an arrangement by the Lord, and that they ought to rule the Church in common with them.’ Thus far St. Jerome. Hence no one can rightly forbid a return to the ancient constitution of the Church of God, and to have recourse to it before human custom.

While the modern practice of the historic episcopate is older than the modern practice of historic presbyterianism, in my estimation the biblical and apostolic warrant for episcopacy is non-existent.

The rhetoric of anti-Catholicism, whether its sources are Protestant or secular, has always insisted that the church of Rome is the enemy of what you might call healthy sexuality. This rhetorical trope has persisted despite radical redefinitions of what healthy sexuality means; one sexual culture overthrows another, but Catholicism remains eternally condemned...But at the same time, the way the “healthy sexuality” supposedly available outside the church seems to change with every generation offers a reason to be skeptical that all Catholic ills would vanish if Rome only ceased making “unnatural” demands like celibacy and chastity.

The difference between the secularists of today who believe that priests need to be sexually liberated, and the Protestants of the past (and present), is that the Reformed believe Rome insisting on clerical celibacy goes beyond scripture and even violates it. This twists the gospel by concluding that celibacy is necessary for a better spiritual life...]]>From Ross Douthat, in The New York Times,

The rhetoric of anti-Catholicism, whether its sources are Protestant or secular, has always insisted that the church of Rome is the enemy of what you might call healthy sexuality. This rhetorical trope has persisted despite radical redefinitions of what healthy sexuality means; one sexual culture overthrows another, but Catholicism remains eternally condemned…But at the same time, the way the “healthy sexuality” supposedly available outside the church seems to change with every generation offers a reason to be skeptical that all Catholic ills would vanish if Rome only ceased making “unnatural” demands like celibacy and chastity.

The difference between the secularists of today who believe that priests need to be sexually liberated, and the Protestants of the past (and present), is that the Reformed believe Rome insisting on clerical celibacy goes beyond scripture and even violates it. This twists the gospel by concluding that celibacy is necessary for a better spiritual life.

Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:1-5:

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. This is my defense to those who would examine me. Do we not have the right to eat and drink? Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife,[a] as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

WCF 22.7:

No man may vow to do anything forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance whereof he hath no promise of ability from God. In which respects, popish monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself.

These are significantly different kinds of critiques from the modern “love is love, do whatever what fulfills you sexually” criticism.

]]>https://cameronshaffer.com/2019/02/27/ross-douthat-and-tough-guy-calvinists/feed/0On Jephthah and Biblical Translationhttps://cameronshaffer.com/2019/02/06/on-jephthah-and-biblical-translation/
https://cameronshaffer.com/2019/02/06/on-jephthah-and-biblical-translation/#respondWed, 06 Feb 2019 18:34:41 +0000http://cameronshaffer.com/?p=683this insightful review by Hillel Halkin of Robert Alter's one-man literary translation of the Old Testament. A great portion of the review uses Alter's translation of the Jephthah account in Judges 11 as an example of the difficulty in translating ancient Hebrew well. Jephthah's exclamation when his daughter comes through his front door can have a range of emphases depending on the way Hebrew worked colloquially:

In the Hebrew, Jephthah’s exclamation is, "Aha, biti! Hakhre’a hikhra’tini, v’at hayit b’okhrai." This is difficult. If one were to try to translate it literally, one would arrive at something like, "Ah, my daughter! To bring to knee have you brought me to my knees, and you have been one of my troublers"...
How should this be translated?
As Alter does ["Alas, my daughter, you have indeed laid me low and you have joined ranks with my troublers"]?
As: "Ah, my daughter, you surely have undone me. You have done what no enemy could do"?
As: "Damn it all, child! You’ve tripped me up, you have, and trouble is all you are"?

Without knowing whether this is formal or casual Hebrew it is impossible to say for certain how Jephthah's statement should be translated. Halkin states, "Much of the Bible is like this. Its translators work in a closed circle. To understand the nuance of a line, they must understand the passage in which it occurs, but they often cannot understand the passage without understanding each line’s nuance. Before objecting that 'Damn it all, child!' can’t possibly be the tone in which Jephthah is speaking, we need to consider the monstrously self-centered person he can be viewed as being...]]>A friend passed along this insightful review by Hillel Halkin of Robert Alter’s one-man literary translation of the Old Testament. A great portion of the review uses Alter’s translation of the Jephthah account in Judges 11 as an example of the difficulty in translating ancient Hebrew well. Jephthah’s exclamation when his daughter comes through his front door can have a range of emphases depending on the way Hebrew worked colloquially:

In the Hebrew, Jephthah’s exclamation is, “Aha, biti! Hakhre’a hikhra’tini, v’at hayit b’okhrai.” This is difficult. If one were to try to translate it literally, one would arrive at something like, “Ah, my daughter! To bring to knee have you brought me to my knees, and you have been one of my troublers”…

How should this be translated?

As Alter does [“Alas, my daughter, you have indeed laid me low and you have joined ranks with my troublers”]?

As: “Ah, my daughter, you surely have undone me. You have done what no enemy could do”?

As: “Damn it all, child! You’ve tripped me up, you have, and trouble is all you are”?

Without knowing whether this is formal or casual Hebrew it is impossible to say for certain how Jephthah’s statement should be translated. Halkin states, “Much of the Bible is like this. Its translators work in a closed circle. To understand the nuance of a line, they must understand the passage in which it occurs, but they often cannot understand the passage without understanding each line’s nuance. Before objecting that ‘Damn it all, child!’ can’t possibly be the tone in which Jephthah is speaking, we need to consider the monstrously self-centered person he can be viewed as being.” Halkin’s first point is very much correct about the chicken-egg situation in which translators find themselves. But, in an effort to defend the more flippant response from Jephthah, Halkin then assumes a significant amount about the context of Judges 11.

“And this [not visiting his daughter in her time of mourning] isn’t the worst of it. The worst is that it never occurs to Jephthah that he needn’t keep his vow—that he can swallow his pride or sense of honor, admit he’s made a foolish mistake, and spare his daughter’s life. He wouldn’t have been the first Israelite to have broken a vow, or the last.” Halkin argues that the translation of Jephthah’s vow depends on whether he is anguished (he made a great error and the Hebrew is formal) or self-centered (his daughter’s death is inconvenient and the Hebrew is casual). But Halkin never considers, at least in this essay, that Jephthah did not sacrifice his daughter, but rather wholly consecrated her to God (a decent summary of this view can be found in Let the Reader Understand by Dan McCartney). The consecration interpretation may be incorrect, but what Halkin is demonstrating, even if inadvertently, is the truth of the closed circle of biblical translation. Halkin cannot provide a solid translation of the Hebrew without understanding the context of Judges 11, settles on an interpretation of that context, and then allows that interpretation to inform his translation. That translation will then guide future readers and future translators into a particular interpretation of the passage, a point Halkin makes often in his essay.

Biblical translation requires, and is itself, biblical interpretation. To determine what the Bible says sometimes first requires determining what it means. Translation is treason, as one of my seminary professors would say. This is why it is critical that ministers know the biblical languages; being familiar with Hebrew and Greek, and not just the translation software, helps protect ministers from unintentionally relying on interpretations masquerading as pure translations.

]]>https://cameronshaffer.com/2019/02/06/on-jephthah-and-biblical-translation/feed/0On the Incarnation of the Word and the End of the Oracleshttps://cameronshaffer.com/2019/02/04/on-the-incarnation-of-the-word-and-the-end-of-the-oracles/
https://cameronshaffer.com/2019/02/04/on-the-incarnation-of-the-word-and-the-end-of-the-oracles/#respondMon, 04 Feb 2019 20:22:42 +0000http://cameronshaffer.com/?p=680posted a summary of Plutarch's 2nd century essay on the cessation of the oracles.

It was widely recognized in Plutarch’s time (late first and early second century A.D.) that the great oracles of the ancient world — the most famous of them being the one at Delphi, of course — had largely ceased to provide useful guidance or had fallen silent altogether. Some of the once famous shrines had been abandoned and had fallen into ruin. But no one understood why this had happened. Plutarch’s “essay” is a fictional dialogue — narrated by one Lamprias, who also takes the leading role in the conversation and may well be Plutarch’s mouthpiece — in which a group of philosophically-inclined men debate the possible reasons for the oracles’ failure.

Jacobs goes on the describe the various reasons that Plutarch through Lamprias rejects and accepts for this silence, which he concludes is a result of shifting natural phenomena. I happened to read Jacobs' post at the same time I was reading Athanasius' On the Incarnation of the Word. Writing in the 4th century, Athanasius addresses this subject as well, but from a much different perspective. Athanasius argues that the incarnation of Christ profoundly altered the world. His incarnation brought the divine into the created, and broke the power of spiritual blindness upon the world. Jesus as the conquering word is not only defeating spiritual evil in the present and future, but has defeated it already by his arrival...]]>Alan Jacobs posted a summary of Plutarch’s 2nd century essay on the cessation of the oracles.

It was widely recognized in Plutarch’s time (late first and early second century A.D.) that the great oracles of the ancient world — the most famous of them being the one at Delphi, of course — had largely ceased to provide useful guidance or had fallen silent altogether. Some of the once famous shrines had been abandoned and had fallen into ruin. But no one understood why this had happened. Plutarch’s “essay” is a fictional dialogue — narrated by one Lamprias, who also takes the leading role in the conversation and may well be Plutarch’s mouthpiece — in which a group of philosophically-inclined men debate the possible reasons for the oracles’ failure.

Jacobs goes on the describe the various reasons that Plutarch through Lamprias rejects and accepts for this silence, which he concludes is a result of shifting natural phenomena. I happened to read Jacobs’ post at the same time I was reading Athanasius’ On the Incarnation of the Word. Writing in the 4th century, Athanasius addresses this subject as well, but from a much different perspective. Athanasius argues that the incarnation of Christ profoundly altered the world. His incarnation brought the divine into the created, and broke the power of spiritual blindness upon the world. Jesus as the conquering word is not only defeating spiritual evil in the present and future, but has defeated it already by his arrival.

“When did human beings begin to abandon the worship of idols, except since the true God Word of God came among human beings? Or when did have the oracles ceased amongst the Greeks and everywhere ceased and become empty, except since the Savior revealed himself upon earth?…Or when were the deceit and madness of the demons of the demons despised, except when the Power of God, the word, the Master of all, even of these, condescended, because of the weakness of humans, to appear on earth?” (§46, page 99).

“And formerly everywhere was filled with the deceit of the oracles, and the utterances of those in Delphi and Dodona and Boeotia and Lycia and Libya and Egypt and Cabiri and the Pythoness were admired in the imaginations of human beings. But now, since Christ is announced everywhere, their madness has also ceased and no longer is there anyone among them giving oracles. Formerly demons deceived human fancy…but now, after the divine manifestation of the Word has taken place, their illusion has ceased.” (§47, page 100).

The context of Jacobs’ summary of Plutarch is a class on disenchantment, and Jacobs states that Lamprias’ view is disenchanting “because it removes power from spirits and gods and concentrates them in a single transcendent Monad.” The difference between Plutarch and Athanasius on this point is that the former is seeking a disenchanting explanation (i.e. a non-mystical, naturalistic explanation) for the cessation of oracles, while the latter argues for a re-enchantment of the world through the incarnation of Christ.

Yesterday a Democratic delegate to the Virginia State Assembly defended bill she submitted to the assembly that would allow abortion up until the moment of delivery, even if the baby is full-term and the mother is dilated.

Heartbreaking… This isn't in New York, this isn't in California, this happened just this week right here in Virginia. @VAHouseDems proposed legislation to provide abortions up to just seconds before that precious child takes their first breath. Watch for yourself. pic.twitter.com/AxgPVyI6kU

Gilbert: So how late in the third trimester would you be able to do that?

Tran: It’s very unfortunate that our physician witnesses were not able to attend today.

Gilbert: No, I’m talking about your bill. How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated it would impair the mental health of the woman?

Tran: Or physical health.

Gilbert: Okay. I’m talking about the mental health.

Tran: Through the third trimester. The third trimester goes all the way up to 40 weeks.

Gilbert: Okay. But to the end of the third trimester?

Tran: Yep. I don’t think we have a limit in the bill.

Gilbert: Where it’s obvious a woman is about to give birth, that she has physical signs that she is about to give birth. Would that be a point at which she could still request an abortion if she was so certified? She’s dilating.

Tran: Mr. Chairman, that would be a decision that the doctor, the physician, and the woman would make at that point.

Gilbert: I understand that. I’m asking if your bill allows that.

Tran: My bill would allow that, yes.

Today the Democratic governor of Virginia addressed this exchange and then advocated for post-birth abortions. Then stated that the whole discussion has been blown out of proportion. Well.

“When we talk about third trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way. And it is done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that is non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in a labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that was what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

This scenario is not what the proposed bill allows; the proposed bill allows killing the infant during delivery. The scenario presented by the governor permits the family and the physicians to allow a newborn infant to die if they have “severe deformities.” Whatever that may mean.

The Republican Party has many faults, some severe. But when racism becomes explicit in the party it gets rebuked, even if begrudgingly and perhaps inadequately. A critical difference between the GOP and the Democrats comes down this: the evil that infects the GOP is recognized as evil and is either denied to be occuring or rejected, whereas the Democrats defend and celebrate evil.

I wrote several posts on the question of exceptions and scruples. This is a subject I intend to address again, but my focus over the past year was on the freedom of pastors to teach on a subject where they disagree with their confession of faith. My conclusions were that if a pastor is granted an exception, he is free to teach it and the presbytery cannot prohibit that teaching. However, a pastor being granted an exception does necessarily free him in his practice, and does not grant that exception to the congregation by proxy.

I wrote an extensive analysis of the confessionalism of the Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians (ECO). ECO and the EPC are closely related, and my hope in that analysis was to provide a charitable and robust critique of ECO's confessional approach in order to better foster a deeper partnership between our churches.

A list of my top posts from 2017 can be found here.]]>This is a list of my top (i.e. favorite) posts from the past year. This list is most helpful for me to look back later to see what captured my attention during 2018.

I wrote several posts on the question of exceptions and scruples. This is a subject I intend to address again, but my focus over the past year was on the freedom of pastors to teach on a subject where they disagree with their confession of faith. My conclusions were that if a pastor is granted an exception, he is free to teach it and the presbytery cannot prohibit that teaching. However, a pastor being granted an exception does necessarily free him in his practice, and does not grant that exception to the congregation by proxy.

I wrote an extensive analysis of the confessionalism of the Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians (ECO). ECO and the EPC are closely related, and my hope in that analysis was to provide a charitable and robust critique of ECO’s confessional approach in order to better foster a deeper partnership between our churches.

]]>https://cameronshaffer.com/2018/12/29/top-posts-of-2018/feed/02019 Reading Project: Athanasius of Alexandria and John Murrayhttps://cameronshaffer.com/2018/12/26/2019-reading-project-athanasius-of-alexandria-and-john-murray/
https://cameronshaffer.com/2018/12/26/2019-reading-project-athanasius-of-alexandria-and-john-murray/#respondWed, 26 Dec 2018 22:09:24 +0000http://cameronshaffer.com/?p=596St. Anselm of Canterbury. It was incredibly enriching. I am continuing this new tradition into 2019, but am trying something a bit bolder: I am selecting two very different theologians to read. I discovered with Anselm that if I had tried just a bit harder I could have read all his work much faster than I did, without compromising depth of understanding. So to test that theory I am reading two people this year. Another difference is that this year I am actually creating a schedule in order to help that theory prove correct.
The first is Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 293-373), one of the great fathers of the church...]]>I started a tradition this past year of selecting a theologian and attempting to read most of their works over the course of a year, as well as reading some biographies on them and commentaries on their work. I started with St. Anselm of Canterbury. It was incredibly enriching. I am continuing this new tradition into 2019, but am trying something a bit bolder: I am selecting two very different theologians to read. I discovered with Anselm that if I had tried just a bit harder I could have read all his work much faster than I did, without compromising depth of understanding. So to test that theory I am reading two people this year. Another difference is that this year I am actually creating a schedule in order to help that theory prove correct.

The first is Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 293-373), one of the great fathers of the church. Athanasius was a bishop in Alexandria, Egypt, throughout the 4th century. He was the most prominent proponent and defender of orthodox christology and trinitarianism. He attended the First Council of Nicaea as a deacon. In Egypt he was sent into and returned from exile multiple times for his orthodox stance. He was the chief defender in the church against Arianism, and the Athanasian Creed, one of the four great ecumenical creeds of the church, is named after him as it reflects the foundational theology he fought to maintain.

For Athanasius’ original works I will be using two books. The first is The Complete Works of St. Athanasius (ASIN B01NBHEKA7; Kindle only). It contains the following works, with his most famous works in bold.

1. Against the Heathen
2. On the Incarnation of the Word
3. Deposition of Arius
4. Statement of Faith
5. On Luke 10:22 (Matthew 11:27)
6. Circular Letter
7. Defense against the Arians
8. Defense of the Nicene Definition
9. Defense of Dionysius
10. Life of St. Anthony
11. Circular to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya
12. Defense to the Emperor
13. Defense of his flight
14. Arian History
15. Four Discourses Against the Arians
16. On the Councils
17. Letter to the people of Antioch
18. Letter to the Bishops of Africa
19. Historia Acephala
20. Letters

The second book is On the Incarnation (ISBN 9780881414271). This work is contained in the other book already, but this edition comes with a famous introduction by C.S. Lewis worth reading in its own right.

The second theologian is John Murray (1898-1975). John Murray was a Scottish systematic theologian who taught briefly at Princeton Seminary, and then spent the majority of his career at Westminster Theological Seminary. Murray was hugely influential in American Presbyterianism in the 20th century, particularly in his theological approach within the confessional system of Reformed theology.

Murray’s original works can be divided into two categories. His major works are:

I have selected one biography, The Life of John Murray (Iain Murray, ISBN 0851519504). Volume 3 of Collected Writings has a biography as well. Some Pastors and Teachers (Sinclair Ferguson, ISBN 9781848717893) has a biographical summary as well as theological interaction with Murray, but I read that work this past year and don’t need to repeat it so soon.

The general schedule I am following will be this (with major works bolded):

January

Against the Heathen

On the Incarnation

Volume 1 of Collected Writings

February

Deposition of Arius

Statement of Faith

On Luke 10:22 (Matthew 11:27)

Volume 1 of Collected Writings

March

Circular Letter

Defense Against the Arians

Volume 1 of Collected Writings

Divorce

April

Defense of the Nicene Definition

Defense of Dionysius

Volume 2 of Collected Writings

Principles of Conduct

May

Life of St. Anthony

Circular to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya

Defense to the Emperor

Defense of his flight

Volume 2 of Collected Writings

The Covenant of Grace

June

Arian History

Volume 2 of Collected Writings

The Epistle to the Romans (volume 1)

Nicaea and its Legacy

July

Four Discourses on the Arians

Volume 3 of Collected Writings

The Epistle to the Romans (volume 2)

August

Letter to the people of Antioch

Letter to the Bishops of Africa

Volume 3 of Collected Writings

The Imputation of Adam’s Sin

Athanasius (Anatolios volume)

September

Historia Acephala

Volume 3 of Collected Writings

Christian Baptism

October

Letters

Volume 4 of Collected Writings

Redemption Accomplished and Applied

Athanasius (Leithart volume)

November

Volume 4 of Collected Writings

The Life of John Murray

December

Catch up if needed

]]>https://cameronshaffer.com/2018/12/26/2019-reading-project-athanasius-of-alexandria-and-john-murray/feed/0On the Vocabulary of Church ‘Membership’https://cameronshaffer.com/2018/12/20/on-the-vocabulary-of-church-membership/
https://cameronshaffer.com/2018/12/20/on-the-vocabulary-of-church-membership/#respondThu, 20 Dec 2018 18:54:56 +0000http://cameronshaffer.com/?p=642People who are part of a particular congregation are often called church “members.” This language is profoundly biblical, and is a visible, covenantal manifestation of the believer’s union with Christ.

μέλος (melos) is the Greek word used to describe the individual parts of a body (literally “body member”). For example, the tongue is an individual member of the body (James 3:5-6). μέλος is used metaphorically to describe the relationship between believers and Christ. Individual believers are all μέλη (members) of Christ (Romans 12:4-5), because we are in Christ. This union with Christ is total: even our bodies, as part of ourselves, are μέλη of Christ (1 Corinthians 6:15, Ephesians 5:29-30). We have been united to Christ as his members through the work of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:12-13). The abiding of John 14 is best described in terms of our union with Christ, our membership in and with him.

This is developed most clearly in Ephesians. The gospel is revealed in the Gentiles, along with Jews, being brought by the Holy Spirit into the church (Ephesians 2:18-22), as οἰκεῖοι (oikeoi), household members of God’s family. Because of the gospel, Jews and Gentiles alike are σύσσωμα (sus-soma), of the same body (Ephesians 3:6). By the Holy Spirit, Christians are made members of the household of God, because we share in the same body, that is, we are all united to Christ. The church is the body of Christ, of which he is the head (Ephesians 1:22-23), and is the household cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20). This μέλη, union in Christ is central to the mystery of the gospel relationship of Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:29-32).

The μέλη of the church then also describes the way in which individual Christians relate to each other as a whole. Being united to Christ as his individual members is the basis of the communion of saints: by our union with Christ, Christians are members of Jesus and each other (Romans 12:4-5, 1 Corinthians 12:14-30, Ephesians 4:25). In all three of these passages and their greater context the church as gathered, worshipping community is being described. The roles of pastors and teachers, along with other institutional features are present, as part of this gathered, worshipping community. Being members of each other, as a result our union with Christ, requires us to belong to visible expressions of the body of Christ, including the institutional ministry of the gospel.

To be a Christian is to be a member of Christ. To be a member of Christ is to be a member of the church. To be a member of the church is to be a participant in the institutional life of the church. Or to reverse the order: church membership reflects our union with Christ. That’s what makes the term profoundly biblical.

The term and understanding of “church membership” has fallen on hard times lately. Anabaptist criticisms of it have existed for centuries, but in recent years there has been an uptick in the term’s rejection. For instance, ECO uses the phrase “covenant partner” to describe local church participation instead. Membership sounded too much like joining a club. That is a decent missional concern, but I doubt the meaning of “covenant partner” is more accessible to non-Christians, and it does not reflect specific biblical vocabulary. Covenant participation is certainly a dominant biblical idea, but covenant “partnership” is not, or at least not without additional definition. The idea of partnership implies an equality or peerage, something that is true of the congregants in a church, but not of the church’s relationship to Jesus.

On the other end of the spectrum is the annual renewal of church membership. This is a growing trend in which a church clears its membership records every year and requires everyone to rejoin. Typically there are service requirements attached to church membership:in order to renew or rejoin the church you’ve got to hit a certain amount of service in the life of the church or community that goes beyond worshipping. This is the “club” mentality of church membership, designed to foster deeper buy in. Membership is about associations of service, not about abiding in Christ. Spiritual membership in the body of Christ or as a member in the household of God does not expire or require certain expressions of service in order to be maintained. Insofar as church membership is an expression of membership in Christ, annual renewal demands that people must united to Christ and do things in order to maintain church membership. It requires actions in addition to faith in order to be part of a church. Membership in Christ certainly has an ethical dimension to it, but annual renewal severs the visible expression of that membership whether or not sin has occurred. Annual renewal membership then has detached local membership from being an expression of membership in Christ.

]]>https://cameronshaffer.com/2018/12/20/on-the-vocabulary-of-church-membership/feed/0The Limits of ECO’s Confessionalismhttps://cameronshaffer.com/2018/12/13/the-limits-of-ecos-confessionalism/
https://cameronshaffer.com/2018/12/13/the-limits-of-ecos-confessionalism/#respondThu, 13 Dec 2018 21:31:01 +0000http://cameronshaffer.com/?p=606A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians (ECO) is a sister denomination to my own EPC. ECO began as a church in 2012, composed of congregations departing from the PCUSA. I have a few friends ministering in ECO, and I have made some efforts at better institutional unity between our churches. At the EPC’s 2017 General Assembly I sat on the Standing Committee (i.e. temporary committee limited to that meeting) on Fraternal Relations. I convinced the rest of the committee to recommend to the Assembly, that the Permanent Committee on Fraternal Relations should be instructed to begin dialogue with ECO aimed at forming a fraternal relationship. This recommendation was approved by the Assembly and encouraging work has begun in that direction.

I mention this to make clear that I like ECO. My hope is that the EPC and ECO formally unite as one church. But there are some significant barriers that need to be overcome if that union is to occur. The most substantial barrier is the issue of confessionalism and doctrine. The EPC is a confessional church: our church teaches, and our pastors and other officers vow to affirm, that the Westminster Confession and Catechisms contain the system of doctrine taught in the scriptures. The Westminster Confession and Catechisms are our doctrinal standards and form one part of our church’s constitution. ECO is not a confessional church in the same way. ECO is in the final stages of reorganizing their doctrinal and ordination standards, but the results are all but set prior to their 2019 Synod this January. ECO has a collection of documents called ECOConfessional Standards, which includes the Apostles’ Creed, The Nicene Creed, The Heidelberg Catechism, The Westminster Confession and Catechisms, and the Theological Declaration of Barmen. However, Confessional Standards is not constitutional for ECO. Instead, they have an additional doctrinal document, Essential Tenets, which is their constitutional doctrinal statement. Essential Tenets affirms the contents of the Confessional Standards as faithful expositions of God’s word. The officers of ECO must vow to “receive, adopt, and be bound by the Essential Tenets of ECO as a reliable exposition of what Scripture teaches us to do and to believe, and…be guided by them in [their] life and ministry.” While not as strict or robust as the subscription vows of the EPC, it is generally comparable. However, officers in ECO must also vow to be “guided by” the Confessional Standards.

So how is ECO not confessional in the same way as the EPC? The first reason is the most obvious: ECO affirms more doctrinal statements than the EPC. The Westminster Confession and Catechisms explicitly teach all the doctrine of the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, and are in close agreement with the Heidelberg Catechism. But the Theological Declaration of Barmen represents a substantially different theological approach from the Westminster Standards, even if its specific conclusions are compatible. Secondly, officers of the EPC vow that they believe the Westminster Standards contain the system of doctrine taught in the scriptures. That is an extensive, exhaustive, vow about the nature of scripture and its teaching. The Westminster Standards do not merely agree with scripture, or affirm its central teachings, but contain the system of doctrine taught by the Bible. ECO’s officer must affirm that the Essential Tenets are a reliable exposition of what scripture teaches. In other words, the doctrines addressed by the Essential Tenets are reliable expositions of scriptures’s teaching insofar as they actually touch on scriptural issues, but are not expositions of the system of doctrine in scripture. This should be clear since ECO’s Confessional Standards contain far more nuance and information than the Essential Tenets. The scope of the EPC confessional ordination vow encompasses far more than ECO’s, which affects the nature of confessionalism. Thirdly, while the EPC does have the additional document “Essentials of the Faith,” the undisputed doctrine of the church and its officers is the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. Not so with ECO. The Confessional Standards for ECO is a guide to scripture’s teaching, a guide which the officers of the church are not obligated to affirm beyond what the Essential Tenets teach. This is the reason for the difference in ECO’s ordination vows: they are bound by the Essential Tenets, but are only guided by the confessions. The Essential Tenets do not possess the breadth of the Westminster Standards, or the other documents in the Confessional Standards, and beyond the limited breadth of the Essential Tenets the officers are only guided, not bound by their church’s confessions.

The nature and content of the Essential Tenets is confessional problem as well, one that ECO will likely need to address in the long-term. ECO currently has a theological council assessing their confessional standards, but their work timeline appears to expire after the 2019 Synod. The self-professed purpose of the Essential Tenets is t0 “call out for explication, not as another confession, but as indispensable indicators of confessional convictions about what Scripture leads us to believe and do. Essential tenets do not replace the confessions, but rather witness to the confessions’ common core. This document is thus intended not as a new confession but as a guide to the corporate exploration of and commitment to the great themes of Scripture and to the historic Reformed confessions that set forth those themes.” So the Essential Tenets are not to intended to be an additional confession of faith, but serve as a testimony of the shared core of the Confessional Standards. It unfortunately fails on both counts.1

The Essential Tenets as Witness to the Confessional Standards

There are a number of instances where the Essential Tenets teach doctrines that are simply absent from its confessional heritage. This is not a situation where perhaps one confessional document fails to touch on a subject, but the others manage to do so, but a circumstance where the doctrinal formulation is absent entirely. Even accounting for the uniqueness of the Barmen Declaration within the Confessional Standards, the Essential Tenets teach doctrines not contained within the Confessional Standards, and sometimes teaches doctrines which contradict them.

In Essential Tents II.A (The Trinity) it states, “The ongoing act of creation is further manifested in God’s gracious sovereignty and providence, maintaining the existence of the world and all living creatures for the sake of His own glory (underline added).” The Westminster Confession and Catechisms and Heidelberg Catechism teach that the work of creation is completed at the end of the six days of Genesis 1 (WCF 4.1, WSC 9, WLC 15, HC 26). This completed (not ongoing) work of creation is one of two ways in which God executes his decrees, the other way being his ongoing providence which is distinct from the completed act of creation (WCF 5, WSC 8, 11, WLC 14, 18, HC 26-28, which is an exposition of the Apostles’ Creed). This statement cannot be substantiated from the Confessional Standards, and even contradicts it.

An older edition of the Essential Tenets included a commentary which stated, “The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is the decisive dogmatic articulation of Trinitarian faith. It establishes the vocabulary, grammar, and syntax of Christian theology.” The current official introduction says, “The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed provided the church with a clear and succinct understanding of the person of the person of Christ and the nature of God, uniting the universal church in its most essential doctrines.” Yet in the second sentence of the Essential Tenets I (God’s Word) it states, “The Son eternally proceeds from the Father as His Word (underline added).” This is simply wrong. The eternal Son of God is begotten of the Father before all worlds…begotten, not made. Jesus does not proceed from the Father. The difference between “begotten” and “proceeding” is stark in the Nicene Creed’s treatment of the Holy Spirit. The Nicene formulation is repeated in the Heidelberg Catechism’s exposition of the Apostles’ Creed (HC 23, 33) and the Westminster Standards (WCF 2.3, WLC 10). This error is either sloppiness of the worst degree or an intentional departure from the theology and vocabulary of the Confessional Standards. The irony is that the orthodox, Nicene formula is later expressed in Essential Tenets II.A (The Trinity), “The Son is eternally begotten from the Father, and the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son.”

Essential Tenets III.C (Covenant Life) teaches that “through the work of the Holy Spirit, the word proclaimed may indeed become God’s address to us (underline added).” This hesitating language cannot be found anywhere in the Confessional Standards. Even the Karl Barth-authored Barmen Declaration never says anything like this. HC 842 states that the preaching of scripture is God’s proclamation, to believers of God’s forgiveness, and to unbelievers of God’s judgment if they do not repent. It is God’s address when proclaimed, whether or not the Holy Spirit works in the hearts of the hearers. WLC 160 and WCF 21.5 instructs those who hear the preaching of scripture to respond to it as God’s word, since it is that. The Holy Spirit’s enlightenment is necessary to be persuaded and assured of scripture’s truth, but it remains God’s address to us whether or not that persuasion occurs (WCF 1.4).

A prominent section of Essential Tenets III.C (Covenant Life) focuses on the means of grace in the church:

Within the covenant community of the church, God’s grace is extended through the preaching of the Word, the administration of the Sacraments, and the faithful practice of mutual discipline.…Third, the community of the Church practices discipline in order to help one another along the path to new life, speaking the truth in love to one another, bearing one another’s burdens, and offering to one another the grace of Christ (underline added, emphasis original).

The grace extended in discipline is here categorized alongside preaching and the administration of the sacraments. Laying aside the vocabulary of “grace being extended,” this section is a reformulation of the marks of the true church. Where it substantially differs from the Confessional Standards is in the area of discipline. The Essential Tenets presents discipline (as a means of “extended” grace alongside the word and sacraments) as something that is accomplished by encouragement and admonition among members of the church. The language used is reflective of Galatians 6:2 and Ephesians 4:15. Discipline here is about moral regulation, not punitive, corrective action. This former sense of discipline is good and ought to be encouraged. It is affirmed by the content of the Confessional Standards. However, when the Westminster Standards and Heidelberg Catechism speak of discipline in connection to “extending” God’s grace, it is always in this latter, punitive sense, and is always in connection to the government of the church, not the general community of the church.

HC 85 is the best example of this. Discipline is the means of opening and closing the kingdom of God (i.e. “extending” and “retracting” grace) by excluding people from the church through withholding the sacraments from them (cf. WLC 173). WCF 23.4 places the power of discipline in the government of the church, not in mutual, communal discipline. WCF 30 teaches what this looks like, and is intricately tied to the government of the church and the sacraments. WCF 30.4 shows that the progression, mirroring HC 85, is admonishing sinners to repent followed by suspension from the Lord’s Supper if they do not show repentance. This is an exercising of the use of the keys of the kingdom.

The mutual discipline described by the Essential Tenets is affirmed by the Westminster Standards and Heidelberg Catechism as good (e.g. WCF 26), but is not be described as the “extending” of grace in the same category as the preaching of the word and administration of the sacraments. Discipline is a means of grace due to its sacramental function, of which the power of administration resides with the officers of the church, not the “mutual community” of the church.

Essential Tenets III.D (Faithful Stewardship) is the most bewildering portion of the document. It begins,

The ministries of the church reflect the three-fold office of Christ as prophet, priest, and king – reflected in the church’s ordered ministries of teaching elders, deacons, and ruling elders. We affirm that men and women alike are called to all the ministries of the Church, and that every member is called to share in all of Christ’s offices within the world beyond the church. Every Christian is called to a prophetic life, proclaiming the good news to the world and enacting that good news. Every Christian is called to extend the lordship of Christ to every corner of the world. And every Christian is called to participate in Christ’s priestly, mediatorial work, sharing in the suffering of the world in ways that extend God’s blessing and offering intercession to God on behalf of the world. We are equipped to share in these offices by the Holy Spirit, who conforms us to the pattern of Christ’s life (emphasis original).

What is baffling about this section is the total lack of connection between it and anything in the Confessional Standards; none of its contents speak to the specific offices of the church. The Westminster Confession and Catechisms were famously written to be acceptable to Anglicans and Congregationalists. Anglicans do not recognize the office of ruling elder, believe the diaconate is a teaching and sacramental office rather than an office of service, and believe that office of bishop is distinct from teaching elder. The Congregationalists did not, and many still do not, believe in the distinction between teaching and ruling elders, and many held that the diaconate was an office that expired in the apostolic era. The Westminster Assembly did approve a form for presbyterian church government, but that document also included a fourth office of teacher (i.e. seminary professor) and is not part of the Confessional Standards or currently used by any denomination. Nothing in the Confessional Standards substantiates the claim that the offices of the church reflect the three-fold office of Christ as prophet, priest, and king. WLC 45 states that Jesus executes the office of king by providing officers for the church: there may be prophetic and priestly functions to the pastoral office, but the connection between pastoral ministry and the offices of Christ is found in Christ governing his church as king by the preaching of his word and administration of the sacraments (WCF 30.1-2). Similarly, there is nothing in the content of the Confessional Standards to justify the claim that all the offices of the church are open to men and women. This is an important point to which I will return later. The Westminster Confession and Catechisms, along with the rest of the Confessional Standards, do not proscribe believing in the officers of the church as described in the Essential Tenets, but the Essential Tenets cannot honestly claim to represent the teaching of the Confessional Standards on this point.

None of ECO’s confessions teach that all members of the church are called to share in Christ’s offices, either in the the church or in the world. The Westminster Standards teach that Christ’s offices are about his mediatorial work to the church (WCF 8.1, WSC 23-25, WLC 42-45). With the exception of the office of king, all of Christ’s offices are internally focused on the church; the external aspect of Christ executing the office of king to the world is in “taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and obey not the gospel,” which does not fit the thrust of what the Essential Tenets affirm on this point. The Christian is called to share in the benefits of Christ’s mediation (WCF 8.6, WSC 32, 36-38, 88, WLC 57-59, 65-83, 154), not the offices that Christ executed to secure redemption. This sharing in the benefits of redemption is not about our actions, but about what Christ has done for his people.

Similar logic is present in the Heidelberg Catechism. HC 31 teaches that Christ’s offices are what he has done and is doing for the church as a result of his redemptive work. He was anointed by the Holy Spirit for these offices, and HC 32 states that the Christian shares in Christ’s anointing, not by sharing in his offices, but by reaping the benefits of and responding to redemption. None of the responses listed map onto what the Essential Tenets teach.

On a foundational level there is a meaningful difference between how the Confessional Standards and the Essential Tenets describe the offices of Christ and the Christian’s relationship to them, and this difference is mutual exclusive. Either the offices of Christ are an expression of his mediation for the church in securing redemption for his people, in which we share in the benefits that is our salvation (Westminster Standards, Heidelberg Catechism), or the offices of Christ are about his relationship to the world, and the Christian’s participation in those offices is about engaging the world outside the church (Essential Tenets). These are drastically different understandings of Christ’s mediation. These differences can be seen in how the Essential Tenets describes the Christian sharing in Christ’s offices.

It describes the prophetic ministry of the Christian as being about “enacting the good news.” The Confessional Standards‘ understanding of the good news is that it is something enacted by Christ in his incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension. The good news is not something we enact, it is something historically accomplished by Christ. The Apostles’ Creed is the summary of this good news as an historical act, and is affirmed by the rest of the confessions: Heidelberg Catechism (HC 19, 22-23), The Westminster Standards (WCF 7.6, WSC 31, 86, WLC 59-60, 72) and Barmen Declaration (§1, 6). Shifting the enactment of the gospel into the hands of Christians rather than Christ is by definition an inverting of the gospel. The kingly ministry of the Christian is described as a calling to every Christian to “extend the lordship of Christ to every corner of the world.” This idea is entirely absent from the Confessional Standards because Jesus is lord over all, now, and does not need our help in increasing his lordship. The Essential Tenets might be trying to say something like, “evangelize so that people may submit to Christ as lord” or “go into every facet of culture and redeem it to reflect God’s purpose for creation,” but the phrase is too ambiguous to definitively mean these things. Even if it did mean them, it still cannot be defended as the teaching of ECO’s confessions on the lordship of Jesus. It is also poor wording to say “every Christian” is called to extend Christ’s lordship to “every corner of the world.” Finally, the Essential Tenets equate Jesus’ priestly office with his mediatorial role. But Christ’s mediation is his entire work of redemption, including executing the offices of king and prophet (WCF 8, WLC 36, 38-42, HC 15-18, 36) not only in his death and continual intercession, but in his incarnation, life, resurrection, and ascension.

Outside of specific doctrinal differences between the Essential Tenets and the Confessional Standards, the Essential Tenets either employ a very different vocabulary or is lacking in key emphases found in ECO’s confessions. The language of “we/us” makes it difficult to discern whether the Essential Tenets are speaking of humanity in general or God’s people particular in a number of places (e.g., “Although we are each deserving of God’s eternal condemnation, the eternal Son assumed our human nature, joining us in our misery and offering Himself on the cross in order to free us from slavery to death and sin.”) The Essential Tenets are lacking the clarity of the creeds and confessions in this area, and this obscurity of language makes it easiest to read it in a non-Reformed document. The Tenets only contain a single reference to justification, “We are declared justified, not because of any good that we have done, but only because of God’s grace extended to us in Jesus Christ,” and this single sentence hardly reflects the theological core of the Westminster Standards or Heidelberg Catechism, much less their actual doctrinal articulation in this area. “Grace” as term seems to be used as God’s general condescension and blessing to humanity (“This grace does not end when we turn to sin”) rather than an emphasis on Christ’s redemptive work. Covenant theology is at best limited (“We are elect in Christ to become members of the community of the new covenant. This covenant, which God Himself guarantees, unites us to God and to one another…Baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace”). Sin is presented as a twisting of our nature and inclinations, not violations of God’s law (“No part of human life is untouched by sin. Our desires are no longer trustworthy guides to goodness, and what seems natural to us no longer corresponds to God’s design”), and God’s law is described as a guide rather than a perpetual moral obligation (“As we practice the discipline of regular self- examination and confession, we are especially guided by the Ten Commandments”). The resurrection of Christ is relegated to two, indirect references, “This mystery of the incarnation is ongoing, for the risen Jesus…has now ascended to the Father in His resurrected body and remains truly human” and “In the Lord’s Supper…His resurrection life may nourish…us.” The Essential Tenets are not intended as an exhaustive summary of the Confessional Standards, but it fails to present the doctrinal center of ECO’s confessions effectively.

The Essential Tenets fail as explication of the ECO’s confessions, and unsuccessfully witnesses to their shared theological center. The Tenets often assert doctrines absent from the Confessional Standards, and occasionally contradict the confessions and creeds. The Tenets also emphasize doctrinal points that are not central to the confessions while simultaneously failing to prioritize critical aspects of ECO’s confessional heritage.

The Essential Tenets as a De Facto Confession

The Essential Tenets were not designed to be a new confession, but to be a guide for ECO’s actual confessions of faith. It fails this goal and has become a de facto confession for several reasons.

The first reason relates to the other aim of the Essential Tenets: they are not dependable guides to the Confessional Standards. Since they are different enough from the Confessional Standards, yet remain normative for ECO, the role they play is as an additional statement (i.e. confession) of faith.

Secondly, the Confessional Standards are filtered through the Essential Tenets. ECO’s various confessions only have a secondary, implicit authority as a result of their affirmation in the Essential Tenets. Since the Confessional Standards are not constitutional in and of themselves, their authority rests upon the degree to which the Essential Tenets affirms their content as biblical. In other words, the Confessional Standards are subordinate to the Essential Tenets doctrinally, which has the necessary effect of making the Essential Tenets a confession of faith.

This is more evident from the third reason, namely ECO’s ordination vows. All officers of the church, as well as non-ordained leaders, must affirm, adopt, and be bound by the Essential Tenets as a faithful exposition of scripture. This is explicit, confessional subscription language. The remaining confessions only serve as a guides, and do not command the same kind of acceptance as the Essential Tenets. This is expressed by the level of agreement required for the Essential Tenets versus the other confessions. To be “guided” by the confessions allows for flexibility in the particular doctrines to which officers of the church assent. No such flexibility exists in the accepting and binding of the Essential Tenets. In 2015 ECO provided guidance on this issue: “In no part of ECO polity is there a sense that some sections of the Essential Tenets are more important than others. Our call is to be in agreement with the whole document as a faithful expression of our reformed faith, the Book of Confessions, and the Word of God.” This does not mean that all articles and specific details of the Essential Tenets are of equal importance, but that all must be affirmed and adopted by all officers of the church. This is different from the EPC (and OPC and PCA) which allow for teaching elders to declare scruples they have with the Westminster Standards, and permit presbyteries to grant confessional exceptions to those scruples if they do not undermine the Standard’s system of doctrine. Because the guidance of the Confessional Standards are accessed for ECO’s officers via their affirming the Essential Tenets, and since ECO’s ordination vows do not allow exceptions to the Essential Tenets, where differences exist between the Essential Tenets and Confessional Standards officers and leaders of ECO are required to side with the Tenets. The effect of this is that the Essential Tenets are not only a de facto confession, they are the cardinal confession for ECO.

There are some odd applications of this. The question of creation as ongoing or completed is probably thought of as minor by most people, but the Essential Tenets strikes a definitive position on the topic with a conclusion contrary to the Confessional Standards. This requires ECO’s officers to either affirm creation as ongoing (contrary to the confessions) or to forfeit their ordination. The doctrine moves from minor to major because of this. A more obvious idiosyncrasy is the subject of women’s ordination. The Essential Tenets make affirmation of women’s ordination a non-negotiable article of faith for officers and leaders of ECO, while claiming at the same time that the Tenets are a faithful witness to the Confessional Standards. Yet none of ECO’s confessions speak to the issue. So all of ECO’s officers have to affirm women’s ordination, even though the Confessional Standards do not speak to the subject. The irony is that none of the authors of the Confessional Standards could actually be ordained in ECO! The council members of Nicaea and Constantinople, Zacharias Ursinus, the Westminster Divines, and Karl Barth would all be disqualified from eldership in ECO because they could not affirm a doctrinal assertion which claims to represent the shared theological core of their work. ECO has every right to require this affirmation from their leaders, but it is erroneous to state that the Essential Tenets are a faithful witnesses to the common theological core of the confessions and that the Essential Tenets are not a new confession of faith.

The point at issue for the EPC is not women’s ordination per se (the EPC does ordain women after all), but the relationship between the Essential Tenets and the Confessional Standards. The Essential Tenets require belief in doctrines not affirmed in the confessional Reformed tradition, and de-emphasizes important articles of faith (e.g. the resurrection of Christ, justification). The nature of the EPC’s affirmation of the Westminster Standards settles the matter for us when it differs from the Essential Tenets. Mandating assent to doctrines absent from the Westminster Standards is a non-negotiable for the EPC. Because of how the Essential Tenets differ from the Confessional Standards, the EPC will need to be persuaded of meaningful and decisive reconciliation between the documents on ECO’s part before serious doctrinal discussions can really happen between our two churches. So sorting out the confessional differences within ECO (resolving the conflicts in nature and content of the Essential Tenets and Confessional Standards), and then sorting out the resulting confessional differences between ECO and the EPC, will be absolutely necessary before steps towards formal unity take place. And that sorting out can only happen through ongoing conversation and mutual assessment.

1. ECO initially adopted the PCUSA’s Book of Confessions, which at the time also included the Scots Confession, the Second Helvetic Confession, the Confession of 1967, and a Brief Statement of Faith. The Essential Tenets were first published by the Fellowship of Presbyterians (now The Fellowship Community) a precursor to ECO. So the Essential Tenets were originally intended to witness to the common core of a much broader set of confessions than is currently contained in the Confessional Standards. However, the Essential Tenets of ECO still maintain that as written they are a witness to the common theological core of the the current confessions of ECO, and that claim should be treated on its merits and application, not its history.

2. It is interesting to note that in ECO’s official version of the Heidelberg Catechism, the following lines are eliminated from Q&A 84: “The kingdom of heaven is closed, however, by proclaiming and publicly declaring…” in favor of “On the contrary…” There is a proposal before ECO which will be taken up at their 2020 Synod to adopt the Heidelberg Catechism as published by the RCA and CRC, which contains the original wording.